CWPOA/7325/2019 on 9 October 2026

2026:HHC:44719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWPOA No.7325

of 2019

Decided on

: 09

th October, 2026

____________________________________________________________________ Parmoj Sharma and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent _____________________________________________________________________

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Balvinder Singh Ballu, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

The petitioners by way of present petition have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That the order dated 8.6.2015 (annexure A-7) passed by the respondent may very kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) That directions may very kindly be issued to the respondent to regularize services of the applicants as Lecturer (Physics) in case of applicant No. 1 and as Lecturer (Physical Education) in case of applicant No. 2 from 27.12.2002 with all consequential benefits of pay, salary etc. alongwith interest @9% per annum, in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioners were earlier appointed as 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Lecturers in erstwhile DAV College, Sujanpur Tihra, District Hamirpur, H.P. (in short “the College”) on 01.08.2000. As per Notification dated 28.08.2001 (Annexure A-1) issued by respondent No.1, the said College was taken over by the Department of Education w.e.f. 07.03.2001 and it was renamed as Thakur Jagdev Chand Memorial Government Degree College, Sujanpur Tihra. As per the terms and conditions of the Notification of taking over the College, the services of the teaching and non-teaching staff were also ordered to be taken over as per the instructions already issued vide Notification dated 25.08.1994. Since the petitioners had not completed one year of service as on 07.03.2001 in the College, from which date the College was taken over and further were not possessing the qualification of NET, their services were not taken over as per the terms and conditions of the Notification issued by the respondent- State. However, later on, their services came to be taken over, but on contract basis, as per letter dated 18.05.2006/31.05.2006 (Annexure A-2) from the date of taking over the college as per Notification dated 28.08.2001. It is relevant to mention that one Dr. Meena Sharma, who was also working in the same college, where the petitioners were earlier serving, had also not completed one year service in the College as on 07.03.2001, but her services came to be taken over w.e.f. 27.12.2002 after the Cabinet decision dated 27.12.2002 when the stipulation of one year continuous service for the teaching and non-teaching staff was relaxed, with a rider that in case the teaching staff do not qualify the NET/SET, they would be given three years' time to acquire the qualification, failing which, they will be sent to the School Cadre.

3. Since the respondent-State had offered appointment to Dr. Meena Sharma on regular basis w.e.f. 27.12.2002, the petitioners had also approached this Court by way of CWP Nos.676 and 678 of 2009 and this Court, vide common judgment dated 23.02.2011(Annexure A-3), after taking note of the contentions raised by the petitioners, disposed of the same, directing the respondents to treat the petitioners similar to Dr. Meena Sharma, as per the Cabinet decision dated 27.12.2002 and regularize their services within three months from the date of production of copy of the judgment by the petitioners and further the petitioners shall also be paid the consequential benefits within the same time, failing which, interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall also be paid to them.

4. The respondent-State feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, preferred two Letters Patent Appeals being 670 and 671 of 2011 before the Division Bench of this Court. However, the respondent-State remained unsuccessful, when the appeals were dismissed on 17.09.2014. Before the dismissal of the appeals preferred by the respondent-State, the services of the petitioners were regularized as per Notification dated 14.07.2014 (Annexure A-6).

5. Thereafter, the respondent passed an order on 08.06.2015 (Annexure A-7), rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization on the analogy of Dr. Meena

Sharma as per the Cabinet decision dated 27.12.2002, observing that their cases are totally different to Dr. Meena Sharma. It was observed that the petitioners had not passed NET/SET within three years as per the Cabinet decision dated 27.12.2002. Besides this, the State had also regularized the services of the petitioners on 14.07.2014 w.e.f. 01.06.2014 with the condition that the candidates who are not eligible as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (in short “R&P Rules”) in vogue at the time of their appointment, they shall have to pass NET/SET examination till 30.06.2016, otherwise their services shall be terminated. Thus, the petitioners cannot be regularized on the analogy of Dr. Meena Sharma as per the Cabinet decision dated 27.12.2002 and if the petitioners fail to pass NET/SET by 30.06.2016, their services will be terminated accordingly.

6. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.06.2015 (Annexure A-7) passed by the respondent have approached this Court inter alia on the grounds that at the time of taking over their services, the requirement of having qualification as per R&P Rules was not insisted by the State. Even otherwise, as per the Notification, in case, the teaching staff did not clear NET examination within a period of three years, they shall not be granted the increments and the same shall be withheld. It has wrongly been observed in the order that both the petitioners have failed to pass NET/SET within three years of the Cabinet decision dated 27.12.2002, whereas the said decision was not brought to the notice of the petitioners and they came to know about the decision only in the year 2008, when it came to their notice that the said decision has been implemented in respect of Dr. Meena Sharma. It has also been averred that non-qualifying NET/SET would have disentitled the petitioners only from the annual increments, as has been done in case of other persons, who were regularized without qualification as per the R&P Rules. The action on the part of the respondent to take over the services of the petitioners on contract basis is bad and as such prayed that their services may be regularized w.e.f. 27.12.2002 with all consequential benefits.

7. The respondent filed reply to the petition and in preliminary submissions averred that as per the direction given by this Court in the judgment dated 23.02.2011, they were directed to be covered under the Cabinet decision dated 27.12.2002, against which, the respondent-State had filed the appeals, which came to be dismissed on 17.09.2014. It has further been averred that petitioner No.1 was appointed on contract basis on 01.08.2000 till 31.03.2001 and paid out of local funds by the Principal of privately managed DAV Women College, Sujanpur Tihra. He did not qualify NET/SET test. He also did not fulfill the condition of one year’ regular service on 07.03.2001. Neither any post was advertised nor any interview for his selection was conducted. As per the Notification dated 28.08.2001, the services of the staff, who did not complete one year service before taking over college will be retained in the College, on contract basis as per the terms and conditions applicable for appointment of Contract Lecturer (College Cadre). Petitioner No.2 was appointed on 01.08.2000 @Rs.1,500/- per month salary, he too has not qualified NET/SET and, therefore, not eligible as Lecturer (Physical Education). However, there was no sanctioned post of Lecturer (Physical Education) in the erstwhile College and further he was appointed without interview. As per the Cabinet decision dated 27.12.2002, it was agreed in principle to relax the stipulation of one year’ continuous service for teaching and non-teaching staff. In case the teaching staff do not fulfill the qualification of NET/SET, they would be given three years’ time to do so, failing which, they will be sent to school cadre. After the decision of the Cabinet, the State Government had also given an opportunity to the petitioners by regularizing their services as Lecturer (College Cadre) w.e.f. 01.06.2014 as per Notification dated 14.07.2014, subject to condition No.(iii), that the candidates who are not eligible as per the R&P Rules in vogue at the time of their appointment, they shall have to pass NET/SET examination till 30.06.2016, otherwise their services will be terminated. However, in the case of the petitioners, they are not similar to Dr. Meena Sharma. She fulfilled the requisite qualification as per the provisions of R&P Rules in vogue at the time of taking over of her services and the petitioners were not fulfilling the requisite qualifications at the time of taking over the College by the Government.

8. On merits, it has been averred that since the case of the petitioners is not similar to the case of Dr. Meena Sharma, for the reason that they do not fulfill the requisite qualification at the time of taking over the College by the Education Department, their services have been regularized on 14.07.2014 and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

9. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent-State and controverted the averments made therein. The petitioners have placed on record the Notification dated 14.06.2006 (Annexure P-9 at page 78) issued by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi (in short “UGC”) and communication dated 10.01.2012, issued by the Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-10). As per the aforesaid Notification and

communication, the candidates having M.Phil. degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully.

11. As per the Notification dated 28.08.2001 (Annexure A-1), the Lecturers whose services were taken over as Lecturer (College Cadre) were required to clear NET examination as prescribed in the R&P Rules within a period of three years, failing which their increments would be withheld. Further, as per the condition to take over the services of the teaching staff, only services of those teachers who had served in the college, which has been taken over by the respondent- State as per Notification dated 28.08.2001 for more than one year, were to be taken over. However, in the case of the petitioners, they were appointed in the College on 01.08.2000 and as per Notification dated 28.08.2001, since they had not completed one year service as on 07.03.2001, their services were not taken over. However, later on, as per communication dated 18.05.2006/31.05.2006 (Annexure A-2), their services were taken on contract basis with effect from 28.08.2001.

12. It is apt to take note of the fact that before taking over the services of the petitioners on contract basis, the Cabinet had taken a decision on 27.12.2002 to relax the stipulation of one year’ continuous service for the teaching and non-teaching staff, however, with the condition that the teaching staff, if do not possess the qualification of NET/SET, would be given three years’ time to do so, failing which they will be sent to the School Cadre. The relevant decision of the Cabinet as reproduced in the order dated 08.06.2015 (Annexure A-7), is reproduced here under: “The cabinet agreed in principle to relax the stipulation of one year continuous service for the teaching and non- teaching staff. In case the teaching staff does not fulfill the qualification of NET/SET they would be given three years time to do, failing which they will be sent to school cadre.”

13. A perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Cabinet reveals that the relaxation of one year continuous service was granted on 27.12.2002, but despite that, the services of the petitioners were not taken over, more especially, when it was also held that the teaching staff, who do not possess the qualification of NET/SET, would be given three years’ time to do so, failing which, they will be sent to the school cadre. In the case of Dr. Meena Sharma, who was also serving in the same institute where the petitioners were serving as Lecturers, the respondent had taken over her services on 27.12.2002 on regular basis but the services of the petitioners were not taken over as they were unaware about the said decision. Later on, as per letter dated 18.05.2006/31.05.2006 (Annexure A-2), their services came to be taken over, that too, on contract basis.

14. The petitioners, after coming to know about the said decision, had approached this Court by way of petitions, which came to be disposed of by a common judgment on 23.02.2011, wherein this Court had succinctly dealt with the issue and came to the categorical conclusion that the petitioners are similarly situate to Dr. Meena Sharma and they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and a final decision with regard to regularization of their services as Lecturer in pursuance of the Cabinet decision dated 27.12.2002 shall be taken by the respondent-State within three months. The respondent rejected the claim by taking into account the fact that the petitioners had not passed the NET/SET within three years as per the Cabinet decision dated 27.12.2002. The respondent was unaware about his own Notification issued on 20.09.2007, when a conscious decision was taken after considering the import of the Notification dated 14.06.2006 issued by the UGC, wherein it was categorically mentioned that the candidates having M.Phil. in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching. The relevant part of the Notification dated 20.09.2007, which has been reproduced in communication dated 10.01.2012 (Annexure P-10) is reproduced here under: “Notification dt. 20.09.2007 against point no.7 clause (vii);- That NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as lecturer for those with postgraduate degree. However, the candidates having Ph.D. degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level and UG level teaching. The candidates having M.Phil. Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching only. In view of the above, you are therefore, requested to exempt/ waived off the NET condition from the date of acquiring Ph.D./M.Phil. Degree in their respective subject and release of withheld service benefits of the concerned lecturers. Yours faithfully sd/- Director of Higher Education Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-01”

15. A perusal of the aforementioned Notification clearly and in unequivocal terms reveals that the candidates having M.Phil. degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching. Since the petitioners were possessing the qualification of M.Phil., the respondent ought to have regularized their services w.e.f. 27.12.2002, more especially when the learned Single Judge of this Court had come to the categorical conclusion that the case of the petitioners is covered under the aforesaid Cabinet decision dated 27.12.2002.

16. The respondent-State feeling aggrieved by the said judgment passed in the writ petitions by the learned Single Judge, had taken up the matter in appeals, however, remained unsuccessful and after remaining unsuccessful, was under obligation to implement the judgment in letter and spirit and not to tinker with the same by observing that the petitioners had not passed NET/SET within three years as per decision dated 27.12.2002.

17. As per the decision of the Cabinet, as has been reproduced hereinabove, in case the teaching staff do not acquire the qualification of NET/SET, they would be given three years' time to do so, failing which they will be sent to the school cadre. In the present case, the petitioners are continuously working as Lecturers, now Assistant Professors, in the Education Department (College Cadre) and they were never sent to the school cadre and it was only for the reason that vide Notification dated 14.06.2006, issued by the UGC (Annexure P-9 at page 78), which is the apex body to prescribe the standard and qualification for the teachers, had exempted the M.Phil. candidates from the qualification of NET, who are teaching for UG level classes. The said decision was ratified by the Government by issuing Notification dated 20.09.2007 and thus, the decision taken by the respondent while rejecting the claim of the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory.

18. The respondent while rejecting the claim of the petitioners to regularize their services w.e.f. 27.12.2002 has wrongly construed that the petitioners were not eligible as per R&P Rules in vogue at the time of their appointment, since they had not qualified NET/SET examination till 30.06.2016. As already observed above, as per the Notification dated 28.08.2001, the Lecturers whose services were taken over as Lecturer (College Cadre) were required to clear NET examination as prescribed in R&P Rules within a period of three years, failing which, their increments would be withheld. It was not the condition stipulated in the Notification that in case the person, who does not acquire the qualification, his/her services will not be regularized or terminated. Furthermore, as per the decision of the Cabinet dated 27.12.2002, once the period of one year service was relaxed and services of Dr. Meena Sharma were taken over on regular basis w.e.f. 27.12.2002, the petitioners cannot be given different treatment, especially when they are similarly situate and as such, the petitioners are held entitled for regularization of their services w.e.f. 27.12.2002 with all consequential benefits.

19. Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.06.2015 (Annexure A-7) passed by the respondent is quashed and set aside and the respondent is directed to regularize the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 27.12.2002 with all consequential benefits such as seniority, increments, promotions and other service benefits. The needful shall be done by the respondent within six months from today, and in case, the arrears are not paid to the petitioners within six months from today on account of regularizing their services w.e.f. 27.12.2002, they shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from today till actual payment.

20. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

th October, 2026

( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge